vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
Some more problems with the opinions of Piyadassi Thera:
1. The eternalist view is the view that the self is eternal, so :
a) One is automatically reborn - no need for any desire or craving. It will happen.
b) So why would someone who holds this view crave for eternal existence?
2. The annihilationist view is the view that an existing self ends with the death of the body, so :
a) Again, no need to do anything, no desire or craving is needed. It will happen.
b) So why would one holding this view crave for annihilation?
I can't make any sense of the opinions of Piyadassi Thera. He appears to be saying that someone holding the eternalist view will have a craving for eternal existence. But surely, this is a contradiction? The only other interpretation is that by 'craving for eternal existence' he means craving for the eternalist view, but if so then what he has written was not clearly expressed.
Best wishes, Vincent.
The three taints are: sensuality, being and ignorance.
The three cravings that lead to identity are: craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
I believe that these three cravings are closely related to the first two taints: so they are deeper causes of becoming than the eternalist view or the annihilist view. In fact they are an elaboration of the ever troublesome 'lust' that propels kamma and our round of samsara.
We see them operating everyday in our lives. e.g, We desire to become warm when we are feeling cold. In that very act the desire for becoming and non-becoming both function together. They are a pair, so far as I can tell.
Anyway, the clinging to views of eternalism and annihilation arise at a higher and more complex level when a being takes existence itself as sufficiently desirable that they would like to retain it forever, and so take the view that this existence is in fact eternal. This view grows out of the more rudimentary craving of becoming. The annihilist view is that existence, or some aspect of it, is sufficiently undesirable that they crave annihilism. So that view grows out of non-becoming -- a desire to escape from a current state of existence.
The tathagat, bhikkhus, understands this thus: 'those good recluses and brahmins who describe the annihilation, ... of an existing being [at death], through fear of identity, disgust with identity, keep running and circling around that same identity. Just as a dog bound by a leash tied to a firm post or pillar.
And Bhikkhu bodhis note on this passage is:
The "fear and disgust with identiy" is an aspect of vibha-vatanha, the craving for non-existence. The annihilationist view to which it gives rise still involves an identification with self - a self that is annihilated at death - and this, despite his denials, it binds the theorist to the round of existence.
Anyway, I don't know if this is the kind of answer your looking for, but I'm out of time.